If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

I'm all for competition..but why was this needed? The project i mean. GCC has a C++ implementation, LLVM has a C++ Implementation, there's probably a c++ implementation out there for embedded. It doesnt seem like it filled any niche except for those who hated both GCC AND LLVM.

Comment

I'm all for competition..but why was this needed? The project i mean. GCC has a C++ implementation, LLVM has a C++ Implementation, there's probably a c++ implementation out there for embedded. It doesnt seem like it filled any niche except for those who hated both GCC AND LLVM.

Yep, that sounds like wasted efforts.

Comment

I hate it when celebrity programmers will act like their own workflow equals one thousand people's workflows. If a project has very few supporters, a lot of competition, and nothing really innovative coming out of it then the project doesn't have a use for a big organization like Apache. I'm sure Bergström will try and drum up support for something that barely anyone cared about.

Comment

I hate it when celebrity programmers will act like their own workflow equals one thousand people's workflows. If a project has very few supporters, a lot of competition, and nothing really innovative coming out of it then the project doesn't have a use for a big organization like Apache. I'm sure Bergström will try and drum up support for something that barely anyone cared about.

Well, as long as he works on it, he's free to scratch his own itch. But he shouldn't expect others to support it.

Comment

Proper c++11 support will require a bit of work. It's not exactly trivial to retool a library for it. And c++11 is extremely popular. There are TONS of follks out there very upset with MS about their poor c++11 support, more than a few have dumped msvc for mingw.

Comment

I'm all for competition..but why was this needed? The project i mean. GCC has a C++ implementation, LLVM has a C++ Implementation, there's probably a c++ implementation out there for embedded. It doesnt seem like it filled any niche except for those who hated both GCC AND LLVM.

LLVM probably didn't exist when this was written. Even when Apache took it over as an open-source project in 2005, LLVM wasn't the big deal it is now, not really catching on until after Apple adopted it. And 2005 was simply the date the code was released - presumably the project was created long before...

Comment

Proper c++11 support will require a bit of work. It's not exactly trivial to retool a library for it. And c++11 is extremely popular. There are TONS of follks out there very upset with MS about their poor c++11 support, more than a few have dumped msvc for mingw.

There was no releases since 2008, I doubt there is any C++11 support on the killed library.
Also, want to know who are upset with MS? The ones who didn't get support for C99. Now that's shitty support.

LLVM probably didn't exist when this was written. Even when Apache took it over as an open-source project in 2005, LLVM wasn't the big deal it is now, not really catching on until after Apple adopted it. And 2005 was simply the date the code was released - presumably the project was created long before...

Correct, but that doesn't change the fact that there is no need for it now, so maintaining it would be a wasted effort.

I don't really understand your post, but if I'm correct, you misread the article: Apache is killing their implementation, and IMO they're right doing so, because even when I agree that the future is C/C++ based the same way it was for years, we already have two good implementations of it, there's no need for another one. We probably have even more from the several smaller compilers.